Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bored, here are some Matt Moore stats


Swarly

Recommended Posts

Bored, so I decided to do some math and figure out what Matt Moores stats MIGHT have been had he started the whole year based off of the 5 games he started.

In 5 games, these are his stats:

79 Att, 126 Completions, 990yds, 62.7 Completion %, 8TD, 1INT, 104.9 rating

Stretched out over a 16 game season, this is what I came up with.

403 ATT, 253 Completions, 3168yds, 62.7%, 23 TDs, 4 ints, 102 rating

Now my math might not be perfect, but the numbers seem about right(the only ones that might be off are the completion %, and passer rating). His stats are kinda skewed on the NFL/ESPN stats page because of that game mid-season where he took over for Delhomme and threw an int, so I only included the 5 games he started.

Again, this is a big what-if situation had he stayed consistent, but just thought I'd do the math to pass some time :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bored, so I decided to do some math and figure out what Matt Moores stats MIGHT have been had he started the whole year based off of the 5 games he started.

In 5 games, these are his stats:

79 Att, 126 Completions, 990yds, 62.7 Completion %, 8TD, 1INT, 104.9 rating

Stretched out over a 16 game season, this is what I came up with.

403 ATT, 253 Completions, 3168yds, 62.7%, 23 TDs, 4 ints, 102 rating

Now my math might not be perfect, but the numbers seem about right(the only ones that might be off are the completion %, and passer rating). His stats are kinda skewed on the NFL/ESPN stats page because of that game mid-season where he took over for Delhomme and threw an int, so I only included the 5 games he started.

Again, this is a big what-if situation had he stayed consistent, but just thought I'd do the math to pass some time :D

Yeah the NFL's not consistent enough to proect stats. But since your not projecting his stats to prove he's better than someone else ur cool.

He had a lot of dropped INTs but got a lot better the more he threw so I think as long as the running game is by his side I think he'll be efficient but not productive. Even if he has a high rating he's almost a lock to get snubbed from the pro-bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the NFL's not consistent enough to proect stats. But since your not projecting his stats to prove he's better than someone else ur cool.

He had a lot of dropped INTs but got a lot better the more he threw so I think as long as the running game is by his side I think he'll be efficient but not productive. Even if he has a high rating he's almost a lock to get snubbed from the pro-bowl.

what QB doesnt get lucky with dropped INT's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what QB doesnt get lucky with dropped INT's?

i don't have the tape anymore but he was missing wide open guys and making some doo doo throws early in the NE game. Vikes was a little slow too. He looked more composed the more the season and his games wore on. Hopefully he just needed some starts to help him calm down. There's no way fox doesn't start him. I'll whip out my pitchfork if he does(I don't have one so I'll have to use a shovel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't have the tape anymore but he was missing wide open guys and making some doo doo throws early in the NE game. Vikes was a little slow too. He looked more composed the more the season and his games wore on. Hopefully he just needed some starts to help him calm down. There's no way fox doesn't start him. I'll whip out my pitchfork if he does(I don't have one so I'll have to use a shovel).

My parents own a farm I can get all we need. You bring the torches and I'll meet you there. Someone else will have to supply the tar and feathers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...